Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online
 file check
To: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de>, Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>
References: <1446013561-22121-1-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com>
 <1446013561-22121-3-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com>
 <5638604E.9030000@oracle.com>
 <5638D8CF020000F90001CC68@relay2.provo.novell.com>
 <56386E4B.5080506@oracle.com> <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
From: Srinivas Eeda <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <5654DCCB.5090407@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:55:23 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151124214617.GT15575@wotan.suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2721
Lines: 61

On 11/24/2015 01:46 PM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:20:27PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> Hi Gang,
>>
>> On 11/03/2015 03:54 PM, Gang He wrote:
>>> Hi Junxiao,
>>>
>>> Thank for your reviewing.
>>> Current design, we use a sysfile as a interface to check/fix a file (via pass a ino number).
>>> But, this operation is manually triggered by user, instead of automatically  fix in the kernel.
>>> Why?
>>> 1) we should let users make this decision, since some users do not want to fix when encountering a file system corruption, maybe they want to keep the file system unchanged for a further investigation.
>> If user don't want this, they should not use error=continue option, let
>> fs go after a corruption is very dangerous.
> Maybe we need another errors=XXX flag (maybe errors=fix)?
Great idea Mark! I think adding errors=fix would be a good way to 
address both concerns :) It gives some control if anyone is 
uncomfortable of things getting checked/fixed automatically.

>
> You both make good points, here's what I gather from the conversation:
>
>   - Some customers would be sad if they have to manually fix corruptions.
>     This takes effort on their part, and if the FS can handle it
>     automatically, it should.
>
>   - There are valid concerns that automatically fixing things is a change in
>     behavior that might not be welcome, or worse might lead to unforseeable
>     circumstances.
>
>   - I will add that fixing things automatically implies checking them
>     automatically which could introduce some performance impact depending on
>     how much checking we're doing.
>
> So if the user wants errors to be fixed automatically, they could mount with
> errros=fix, and everyone else would have no change in behavior unless they
> wanted to make use of the new feature.
>
>
>>> 2) frankly speaking, this feature will probably bring a second corruption if there is some error in the code, I do not suggest to use automatically fix by default in the first version.
>> I think if this feature could bring more corruption, then this should be
>> fixed first.
> Btw, I am pretty sure that Gang is referring to the feature being new and
> thus more likely to have problems. There is nothing I see in here that is
> file system corrupting.
> 	--Mark
>
>
> --
> Mark Fasheh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
> Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/